Information Aspects

[Gilly]

...that's it? It's all crystal clear, just like that?

I'm so confused.

[Suz]

...that's it? It's all crystal clear, just like that?

I'm so confused.

No not all crystal clear yet, but your post clarified many of my confusions. At some point I'll sit down and make sense of it all.

[Gilly]

Ok.

[anndelise]

I didn't say anything on it because this is the stuff I've been working with for years now. Back when noone wanted to even consider the aspects, back when even Rick said he regretted mentioning the aspects on that website of his.

I don't, however, agree with how you've defined object vs field. But then, when given two definitions nearly side-by-side, some people prefer the one you've chosen, some prefer the other one (which I use). But since I'm not big in trying to argue points, I hadn't said anything.

But yeah, just be happy noone's calling you stupid.

I am, however, happy to see that you're not dismissing the abstraction/involvement as meaningless like many still do.

Eventually, I'm sure, you'll get to the analog (P) vs digital (J) aspects.

Meanwhile, I mostly just read, and watch what's happening, how people are using the aspects, how people are dismissing some or all of the aspects, etc.

[Gilly]

And what is the other Object/Field definition? I suppose their could be some confusion here because the language I use is rather detached, perhaps a tad too objective, in terms of describing the processes, but I hesitate to use words like "feeling" and "subjective," simply because of the broad strokes they imply and confusion that could be possible with other aspects, mostly internal/external.

[anndelise]

And what is the other Object/Field definition?

fields as simply the interrelationship between objects (the observer could be one of the objects...or not, depending on the context)

(bolded and lined emphasis is mine)
Socionics :: Information Elements

Socionics founder Augusta and her associates viewed reality as consisting of both objects and fields (interrelationships between objects), statics and dynamics (rest and motion), and internal and external qualities.

(bolded and lined emphasis is mine)
Notes on "The Socion, or Socionics Basics" -- pg. 2

Eight facets of reality

In the psyche [these facets] clearly differentiate from one another and even differ in their degree of awareness. The individual uses them differently. In addition, one particular perceptual element of bodies in extraverts and one perceptual element of fields in introverts is leading.

Four perceptual elements of bodies (with their symbols):

1. — Perception of the appearance and shape of an object
2. — Perception of the inner content and structure of an object
3. — Perception of the external dynamics of an object — its movements in space
4. — Perception of the internal dynamics of an object — the changes taking place within it

Four perceptual elements of relations (with their symbols):

1. — Perception of the internal situation of an object
2. — Perception of time
3. — Perception of an object's position in space
4. — Perception of an object's attraction and repulsion

These are the four components of relations of objects with other objects. Or — four different ways of correlating them. How an object fits into the context of other objects is defined by these four relations.
To summarize, we can say that (time) and (internal state) are two forms of interaction between processes (an object in a process) and that (attraction of an object) and (awareness of the positions of objects in space) are two forms of interaction between objects (an object at rest). The first two we will call irrational elements after Jung, and the second two rational.

The leading perceptual function defines one's type of intellect, because it implies the ability to reconstruct through this particular aspect everything once learned or experienced.

Each of them talk about relationships as between two objects.
As I've mentioned before, elsewhere, I'm fully capable of observing the relationship between two things, two animals, two people, two ideas, etc, without necessarily having to reference myself into a triangle with them.


However, I also recognize that for jung purists, (ignoring the alterations that socioncis did to jung's works), the above conflicts with jung's ideas of introverted functions vs extroverted functions.

One way of trying to reconcile that, however, is to ask
1) what makes introverted perceptions + extroverted judgments = "dynamic"
(how does relating objects to ME via N or S result in "dynamic"?)
2) what makes extroverted perceptions + introverted judgments = "static"
(how does relating objects to ME via F or T result in "static"?)




-----
This is actually where the continuous vs discrete (P vs J) thing comes in handy.
"dynamic" = continuous (analog) fields (interrelationships)
"static" = discrete (digital) fields (interrelationships)

In other words, dynamic fields are ideas and sensations that are so interrelated that it's difficult to break the relationships down into discrete parts. So it's easier to consider discrete bodies, rather than discrete fields. Thus giving the sense of 'motion', 'interrelating', etc.

Static fields are ideas and sensations that aren't so interrelated, so can be broken down into discrete parts. When you're dealing with discrete relationships, you can build up a structure or model of an idea, etc by adding in the relationships one by one. Giving a sense of staticness to the information.

With dynamic, small changes in the interrelationships results in small changes in the perception.
With static, small changes in the bodies results in small changes in the perception.

[Gilly]

Eventually, I'm sure, you'll get to the analog (P) vs digital (J) aspects.

You should stop being an arrogant miser and talk to me! I've opened it up here, now you get to come in and tell us what you've learned. Or don't you want to? If anyone calls you stupid or crazy, I will ban them

[Mattie]

Information Aspects is what I've been focusing on as well (which is why I've been in the same titled thread with Aiss and Dynamicism a lot) and I've been trying to learn from the ground up. Go from the abstract to understand the parameters of each IE and then narrow it down until I can make logical conclusions about manifestations of these aspects and IEs.

My main concern is just to remind others to not hold onto this reductive method of analyzing the aspects for too long, though it seems necessarily in order to grasp definitions so abstract. I actually kinda wish you could merge this topic with the other thread going called Information Aspects so we can have one center for this conversation. I feel like the exercise going on there will supplement understanding these because there's effort to capture the essence, if you will, of each aspect that isn't necessarily explained by all of its parts.

I personally would like you to go into further detail with Abstract/Involved, as it gets the least amount of airtime than the other dichotomies you have here. I'm also hoping for some clarity that doesn't involve comparing dichotomies against one another in order to define themselves, for example, I think you involve the ideas of Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, and Feeling, and use the differences between them to create the definition of each dichotomy. And while that's the basic premise of what a binary does, I think stronger definitions can be attained when it isn't self-referential. You do this for Abstract/Involved and Internal/External, and they seem the most unclear to me.

[Gilly]

for example, I think you involve the ideas of Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, and Feeling, and use the differences between them to create the definition of each dichotomy.

Actually I think what is really necessary is to come from the core of human perception, which is not what S, N, T, and F do; they are emergent properties, in my opinion, of the combinations of these dichotomies, which is what I hope to illustrate by breaking them down fully first, and then discussing them in pairs.

And while that's the basic premise of what a binary does, I think stronger definitions can be attained when it isn't self-referential. You do this for Abstract/Involved and Internal/External, and they seem the most unclear to me.

Yeah, those are the two dichotomies that really are integrally interchangeable when trying to get at the core of the functions using a triad to indicate an element, and they are also the most abstract, both in comprehension and expression. So bear with me

[Gilly]

fields as simply the interrelationship between objects (the observer could be one of the objects...or not, depending on the context)

This is the view I used to subscribe to, but given my observations of the rather apparent manifestations of functions, I tend to think it is not entirely the case; I tend to think that Introverted functions represent more of what are typically thought of as right-brain processes that we incorporate into our perception, being capable of processing larger quantities of information at once, but manifesting their conclusions as "feelings," if you will, because they encompass too much information to be processed on a fully conscious level without taking more time. I do think the abstract/involved dichotomy makes for an interesting potential conflict, given the "subjective" bent of both, but I think my definitions make the distinctions fairly clear, if you understand them.

Each of them talk about relationships as between two objects.
As I've mentioned before, elsewhere, I'm fully capable of observing the relationship between two things, two animals, two people, two ideas, etc, without necessarily having to reference myself into a triangle with them.

True, but the key, IMO, to understanding the concept of fields, is that no comparison actually exists between the two without an observer; the correct perception of both objects is assumed, and integrated, in their comparison, whereas perceiving an object in a stand-alone fashion requires no sense of internal objectivity; it is merely taken as it is, used for what it is, whereas any comparison is automatically self-referential, and always requires something beyond perception for its own sake or immediate usage.

For me, the example that demonstrates the necessity of this distinction is the comparison between Fe and Si/Ni. All three can be said to "look inside" of a person, to see what is happening with them "internally." Fe does this by reading natural emotional cues, and making an internal deduction about how another person may/must be feeling based on these cues; Si and Ni, however, read others by way of instinctual reaction, responding to the resonance of another's state with their own.

However, I also recognize that for jung purists, (ignoring the alterations that socioncis did to jung's works), the above conflicts with jung's ideas of introverted functions vs extroverted functions.

Actually until somewhere in the last 6 months, I was a harsh critic of those who attempted to incorporate Jung's works as part of the interpretive basis for Socionics, and have only recently begun to see the full value of incorporating his teachings, albeit more as a supplement to understanding Socionics theory rather than as the groundwork.

One way of trying to reconcile that, however, is to ask
1) what makes introverted perceptions + extroverted judgments = "dynamic"
(how does relating objects to ME via N or S result in "dynamic"?)

Well given that it is a theory of information metabolism, taking for granted that this is how the brain parcels together information, I like to think of the definitions as attempts to characterize the processes, rather than the processes as emergent perceptions of the definitions, and that the information aspects are the actual mechanisms of perception used by the brain, rather than S, N, T, or F; in my opinion these are the emergent properties of the functions (and, as such, what Jung was initially able to observe) rather than more basic characterizations of their integral processes, which are represented by the terms I provided definitions for in the OP.

So I suppose the more accurate question to ask would be, from my framework, "why are field-dynamics characterized as irrational, and object-dynamics as rational?" My answer is that, when you examine the dynamic aspects of information, the observer has two things to focus on, two areas of dynamic perception, if you will, from which he can obtain information: the outside world, and himself. His perceptions of the outside world can change instantaneously; he may shift his focus to another target and thus, the perceptions of this outside world are considered discrete, or rational. The things outside himself which are changing, which can potentially affect him, are things he must attempt to gain control over, things he must harness or reign in. His perceptions of his own constantly changing reactions and involvement are, however, contiguous, existing in one constant stream, inseparable from each other. That which is inside himself, and is inherently changing, must be allowed to change freely; thus, irrational.


It is this emphasis on IM being the properties of the actual mind's focus, rather than simply methods by which reality can theoretically be broken down, that convince me both of the value of Jung's work in interpreting Socioncs functions, and of my particular definition of objects and fields. I am, of course, open to your interpretation, if you would give me your own answer to such a dilemma.

2) what makes extroverted perceptions + introverted judgments = "static"
(how does relating objects to ME via F or T result in "static"?)

To apply the same formula, with regard to the theoretical assumptions of the model and nature of the functions that I outlined earlier, to this question, I would change the question to "what makes field-statics rational, and object-statics irrational?"

Well, if we go again with the assumption that the divide in perception is of that which is inside the self, and outside the self, then we can easily see that the things which we consider as static and unchangeable outside ourselves are those things which we have no control over, which cannot be dissected or broken down; thus, they are irrational. Conversely, the things inside ourselves which are static are those things which we must maintain constant control over, to keep them in place and maintain their boundaries; thus, rational.

So you see it is this convenience in description, the ease with which this breaks down and how apparently flawless this dissection is in its consequences in how everything is broken down, how it is no longer simply a method for dissecting the outside world, but becomes an accurate model of how people perceive and conceive of reality, that is a large part of what convinces me that, in order to use the functions as a medium for properly understanding the psyche and the way information is processed, factors both objective, outside the self, relating to the concrete world, and subjective, people's reactions and integration of what they perceive must be considered the domain of the functions, because, quite simply, information is processed through and of both of these means, and is given to affect them both.


I think both of these examples seem to work with your comparison of digital and analog: digital elements existing independently of one another, signifying division and the formation of boundaries, and analog elements existing in some form of unity or comparison, signifying irreducibility.

[Aiss]

I like it, although I think internal/external and abstract/involved are still less than obvious, though well put in theoretical terms.

Since you aren't satisfied with intimidating the masses into silence, here you have some mere mortal's thoughts.

As a more conventional description, I'd add that internal/external can be seen as holistic vs modular approach - not to be confused with bodies/fields. External elements perceive parts directly and focus on that content, analyzing it, putting it together, deducing from it etc. Internal elements see them as a whole and fill the voids, focusing exactly on that perceived rather than deduced, hidden, implicit content, yet often failing to pay attention to explicit details themselves. An example applicable to everyone, but hopefully illustrating the difference, would be seeing the dots as opposed to seeing the object which contour they outline. Internal elements do the latter all the time and to everything, render the explicit input subconsciously, though it can probably be reverse engineered with some effort. Fe doesn't consciously analyze body language and other nuances, but likely does so subconsciously, offering a feel of a person's emotionality without necessarily realizing physical reasons for it, like what is wrong with the smile that makes it fake. (I use Fe here purposefully since it's the only aspect I understand mostly from theoretical point of view and therefore least likely to be subject to bias by direct experience. If I'm wrong about it, I'm probably wrong about the dichotomies.) The use of holistic and modular here refers to the fact that when dealing with parts subconsciously, we can't separate them and their influences on the end result - internal content.

On the other hand, abstract/involved is more of a universal vs situational difference. Abstract elements deal with conceptualizations, which are widely applicable, whereas situational ones live within the context, being too acutely aware of its intricacies to naturally draw parallels - because these would be seen as requiring oversimplification? - yet able to maneuver with ease in the present. An example of it would be - again, an illustration of difference, accessible to everyone - seeing the forest rather than a dense group of trees, which is different from other groups of trees seen in the past and therefore not the same thing. Abstract elements conceptualize everything without necessarily realizing what past experiences it is compared to.

Interestingly, if the above understanding follows the theory, the difference in irrational and rational as uninterpreted vs interpreted content comes to light - because Sensing is involved due to its externality, due to a focus on details which makes it dependent on a situation with all that is attached to it, yet Feeling is involved exactly by its holistic approach, the impossibility of interpreting the elements independently of each other, which makes it equally dependent on a specific context. That is, Sensing and Intuition focus on content itself - where conceptualization is implicit, unobvious by nature - while Feeling and Thinking focus on its interpretation, which is explicitly conceptual and only implicitly applicable.